Superintendent Bill Webster’s guest column (March 8) embodies the writing we want for Lewiston graduates.
Every choice in Webster’s piece displayed a clear purpose and audience. He supports each well-plotted point with details tailored to his desired effect. He rebuts the opposing side of the issue. His word choice was calculated and his grammar and mechanics perfect. The piece was professional, yet not formulaic or pretentious.
However, Webster’s argument is flawed: The MEA doesn’t offer students authentic writing opportunities such as he employed, and thus the exam cannot fairly judge students’ writing proficiency.
Webster chose a topic of strong personal interest and opinion. No outside party mandated an enforced schedule, so he wrote when and for as long as he wanted. He thought about his topic at any time and worked when inspiration struck. He used whatever medium he preferred in whatever environment he felt most comfortable. He researched to his personal satisfaction and was able to collaborate.
The MEA removes all those conditions available to adults writing for themselves, work and community, which are exactly the writing experiences for which we foster youth participation and excellence.
If I handed Webster four sources on an unfamiliar, boring topic and assigned him a time to write in a crowded computer lab, his results would likely decline with no correlation to his writing ability or instruction effectiveness. Rather, the results would reflect an unfair, inauthentic assessment and call into question my motivation for promoting it.
Jaclyn Boyd, Lewiston
Send questions/comments to the editors.
